Yes, that follows. But how does this affect the current argument?
Is the mathematics valid because color as an inherent property of light is ordered? or because the assignment in our brains is systematic?
Well as it can be defined mathematically from the amplitude (number of) and frequencies of a set of incident photons, then it is not just a subjective quality.
Though instrinic really implies something else, it is more of an emergent property.
MC, that would revert back to my earlier post. The mathematics say that frequency X = color 1 , frequency Y = color 2. If color 1 + color 2 = color 12, then frequency (color 12) = X+Y. Is that right?
All that tells me is that the experience is consistent and ordered. But, I still don’t know the source of the orderliness.
OK.
That would be a falsity. You did single out color. An alternative term for falsity is “lie”.
This thread is turning into a steaming pile of crap.
No, the equation doesn’t say that, it mainly shows the relationship between intensities in diferent mixes of colours.
The argument about ‘structure’ I don’t buy though, what part of it’s ‘structure’ gives a strange quark it’s strangness of -1? Strangeness is still an instinic property of the quark though (one that’s conserved in electromagnetic and strong interactions).
That’s because you’re now arguing about secondary things.
What are the logical gaps in my argument about color, its physicality and the brain?
For the record, I believe that all “sensations” themselves are representations by the brain and distinct from the stimulants themselves.
Demostylus
Another thing, I confined my discussion to color. I didn’t single out color. If I had asserted that color was the only sensation with these properties, then I would have been guilty of doing so.
That’s nonsensical. Colors are things that we can see. If we can’t see x-rays, then how can we assign a color to them? To call them x-ray colored is simply a back-formation that has no real meaning. We group a band of the spectrum together and call them x-rays not because we optically perceive them as being similar, but because they have similar properties in how they can be utilized. Compare this to “red”, which we have grouped together because “red light” is a band of the spectrum that causes a similar response in our retina.
But “hot”, “cold”, and “warm” are not temperatures. They are merely vague descriptions based on the differential between the temperature of the object and the temperature of our skin. Since they are comparative measurements based on temperature differentials, then yes, they are only valid concepts within the range of human perception of them.
Now, if I may quote you from an earlier post
You seem to be saying that there is a fundamental property of light that distinguishes colors. That fundamental property would be wavelength. So you make the distinction between color and wavelength, and you actually state that it is wavelength that is fundamental. You seem to be agreeing with me.
Think of it this way. If we were all blind, then the concept of color would not exist. There would be no names for any band of the electromagnetic spectrum based on our perception. However, the concept of wavelength would still exist. That alone would indicate that wavelength is fundamental and color is not.